Henry Story wrote:
> In a spirit of compromise - there were perhaps just a few too many e-mails
> on this list yesterday so sorry for cutting short a bit harshly then, I do want to work on my implementations too - I do think it can't harm to do a minimal explanation of what a graph is ( in terms of diagrams with arrows) as an introduction. RDF is just the mapping to such a diagram where
> the arrows and objects are named with URIs.
>
YES!!
An hopefully, we can look at EAV as not being an alternative to RDF (or
generally perceived RDF/XML), but simply a case of explaining the
underlying Graph Model from which RDF's model has been derived,
basically a model that hasn't dropped in from outer space.
As I said, we will arrive at the same place ultimately. The Wikipedia
article on EAV is a good enough reference re. the relationship. RDF adds
URIs to the basic model, and from there the actual RDF model becomes far
less confusing to explain. RDF didn't invent the triple, it simply made
the triple webby.
Tell the story right and you will engage more people (technical and non
technical). Zero opportunity for FUD. Zero possibility of history
re-writing power grabs etc..
> From my experience giving talks around the world, people do understand graphs very well now, especially due to the social web emphasis on social graphs, which has nearly become a familiar term. Also when explained lightly I find people don't have trouble with RDF. It has lost it's evil aura, and people catch on quickly.
>
Yes, as per comments above. History matters when educating people :-)
Kingsley
> Henry
>>> On 3 Aug 2010, at 00:34, Henry Story wrote:
>>>> On 3 Aug 2010, at 00:26, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>>>>> RDF and semantics. People will see how flexible it is as we use it.
>>>>>>>> But frankly if that bothers you, then lets forget the spec.
>>>>>>> So this is an RDF spec? No RDF over emphasis or no spec? I am saying: tone it down a little re. RDF, that's all.
>>>>> yes, sorry for cutting the discussion short. It is using the semantic web standards, of which RDF semantics is a core (and evolving piece_). This is what linked data is founded on, anything else that goes that way is just going to reinvent the wheel.
>>>> We use that and we use SPARQL, and the web.
>>>> That does not mean that one cannot use any representation one wants to - as long as it has a clear mapping to RDF, using GRDDL or something like that.
>>>> But please let's not start a discussion on words here. If people can't deal with these distinctions it's to our advantage. Anything they produce will just reinvent what we are doing, just less well.
>>>> HEnry
>>>>>
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen